Fiat126@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 23 days agosocial media rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square23fedilinkarrow-up119arrow-down10
arrow-up119arrow-down1imagesocial media rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneFiat126@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 23 days agomessage-square23fedilink
minus-squareOrbituary@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·23 days agoLiterary or literally? (hint: neither are correct.)
minus-squaresyreus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·21 days agoIn the secondary, new-age definition of “literally” yes that’s true. We lost the war for “literally”. It’s now just an emphasis word. The definition is mind bending: 1)in a literal manner or sense; exactly. 2)informal; used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true. On the bright side less people use “absolutely” incorrectly than before.
minus-squarecan@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1·21 days agoSure, but where in the image do you see someone acknowledge the existence of Threads?
Literary or literally? (hint: neither are correct.)
The latter is correct, no?
In the secondary, new-age definition of “literally” yes that’s true.
We lost the war for “literally”. It’s now just an emphasis word. The definition is mind bending:
1)in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
2)informal; used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
On the bright side less people use “absolutely” incorrectly than before.
Sure, but where in the image do you see someone acknowledge the existence of Threads?